Universal Health Care

unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
edited July 2008 in A Moving Train
Since so many on here want UHC to happen I am looking for a couple of answers to a couple of questions that I haven't seen anyone ask.

1. Who pays for said health care?

2. Who manages/administrates this health care?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345

Comments

  • mertmert Posts: 167
    Um..... You pay for the Health Care, through taxes. And the government administers/manages the health care. You're already paying for some health care - universal would just mean more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care

    I really like the chart of the G8 Nations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics - and I'm not sure why the US has a higher per capita expenditure, higher percentage of revenue spent on health, and higher health care costs as percent of GDP, and yet vastly lower percent of coverage given...
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    The government fails at everything it does and yet so many want to put our health in its hands.

    I say if you want Universal Health Care, get rid of the health insurance industry and allow people to pay for healthcare out of their own pockets.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • Flannel ShirtFlannel Shirt Posts: 1,021
    unsung wrote:
    Since so many on here want UHC to happen I am looking for a couple of answers to a couple of questions that I haven't seen anyone ask.

    1. Who pays for said health care?

    2. Who manages/administrates this health care?

    1. Tax money. If the US Govt can find hundreds of billions to go to war, they can pony up a few billion to keep its citizens healthy.

    2. Good question.
    All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,524
    unsung wrote:
    Since so many on here want UHC to happen I am looking for a couple of answers to a couple of questions that I haven't seen anyone ask.

    1. Who pays for said health care?

    2. Who manages/administrates this health care?


    Here's the answer I usually hear:

    1) The rich...basically anyone but ME!!!!
    2) The government...you can't trust businesses they are evil, the government is the only organization on the planet that is 100% trust worthy and efficient.

    ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ThecureThecure Posts: 814
    unsung wrote:
    Since so many on here want UHC to happen I am looking for a couple of answers to a couple of questions that I haven't seen anyone ask.

    1. Who pays for said health care?

    2. Who manages/administrates this health care?

    i have seen those questions ask but he is the answer. everyone pays for the health care through taxes. either by income tax, sales tax or any other tax that the governemnt has.

    for the second question, the way it would work is that the hospitals would work with the government to set up price for what ever service that the hospital does for patients. it is then the goverment through the taxes that they collect would pay the hospital. it is the hospitals that would be dealing with the goverment not the patient.

    i will just post an article that i found that may help you in understanding how UHC works in canada.

    http://www.newrules.org/journal/nrwin01health.html
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    unsung wrote:
    Since so many on here want UHC to happen I am looking for a couple of answers to a couple of questions that I haven't seen anyone ask.

    1. Who pays for said health care?

    2. Who manages/administrates this health care?

    1. We all do with taxes. Universal health care is not free, just another (and in my view) better way of dividing the bill. It also frees up billions spent on advertising, billing and marketing, which will thus be pointless. Some co-payment is probably a good idea so people won't go for any little scratch, but set at a low level, and with a cap on total cost applied early for the long-term patients.

    2. The health care can be managed at as low a level as you want. There is no need for federal government to do anything about it. It will come down to the individual institutions and doctors and what they do. Some budgetal oversight by local government must of course be in place.

    Thing is that it can of course be done poorly, and a poor way in the US would be to go over the federal budget with federal oversight. Integrate the cost into state taxes (for instance) and let them deal with it. The bigger the bureaucracy the larger the cost. Universal health care trims away a fair portion of bureaucracy by default, and to keep it that way, put it down at least to state level in the case of the US.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    1. We all do with taxes. Universal health care is not free, just another (and in my view) better way of dividing the bill. It also frees up billions spent on advertising, billing and marketing, which will thus be pointless. Some co-payment is probably a good idea so people won't go for any little scratch, but set at a low level, and with a cap on total cost applied early for the long-term patients.

    2. The health care can be managed at as low a level as you want. There is no need for federal government to do anything about it. It will come down to the individual institutions and doctors and what they do. Some budgetal oversight by local government must of course be in place.

    Thing is that it can of course be done poorly, and a poor way in the US would be to go over the federal budget with federal oversight. Integrate the cost into state taxes (for instance) and let them deal with it. The bigger the bureaucracy the larger the cost. Universal health care trims away a fair portion of bureaucracy by default, and to keep it that way, put it down at least to state level in the case of the US.

    Peace
    Dan



    really well stated. and exactly. :) it would be interesting to see exactly how it could be accomplished and effectively and efficiently, and yes....i'd like to see it within my lifetime. what a difference!
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    know1 wrote:
    The government fails at everything it does and yet so many want to put our health in its hands.

    I never really understood this argument. People put tons of other things in the hands of the government that are life or death matter. I mean it is the government that makes sure planes don't crash into each other in the air, it is the government that makes sure that your country doesn't get invaded, how is having the government making sure that doctors get paid any different than that? I mean it is not like I bureaucrat is going to be the one giving you your physical exam, you still go see a real doctor.
    mert wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care

    I really like the chart of the G8 Nations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics - and I'm not sure why the US has a higher per capita expenditure, higher percentage of revenue spent on health, and higher health care costs as percent of GDP, and yet vastly lower percent of coverage given...

    That chart is pretty shocking, especially the first 2 numbers that show that even though the government is already spending a ton of money, the US still has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rate of the G8 nations.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    unsung wrote:
    Since so many on here want UHC to happen I am looking for a couple of answers to a couple of questions that I haven't seen anyone ask.

    1. Who pays for said health care?

    You do.
    unsung wrote:
    2. Who manages/administrates this health care?

    Probably some bureaucracy not unlike FEMA or the TSA.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Thing is that it can of course be done poorly, and a poor way in the US would be to go over the federal budget with federal oversight.

    Unfortunately, since this will be a federal program, what you've described above will be exactly how it happens.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    jeffbr wrote:
    Unfortunately, since this will be a federal program, what you've described above will be exactly how it happens.


    Why would it have to be a federal program? In Canada there is the Canada Health Act that is a federal act that outlines the standards for health care to be provided. The individual provinces pay for health care and manage their own systems (which vary from province to province), and each individual health region manages their own hospitals.
  • _Crazy_Mary__Crazy_Mary_ Posts: 1,299
    know1 wrote:
    The government fails at everything it does and yet so many want to put our health in its hands.

    I say if you want Universal Health Care, get rid of the health insurance industry and allow people to pay for healthcare out of their own pockets.


    I agree with this statement 100%.
    I can't even trust the govt. to deliver my mail correctly. Why would I want them in charge of my health???
    Get rid of insurance and pay your own way! It will bring the cost down for everybody.
    I really screwed that up. I really Schruted it.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    I agree with this statement 100%.
    I can't even trust the govt. to deliver my mail correctly. Why would I want them in charge of my health???
    Get rid of insurance and pay your own way! It will bring the cost down for everybody.

    That sounds great in theory, but what happens to those who can't afford healthcare? Or those (like most of us) who could afford routine care, but if something major was needed (heart surgery, cancer treatement, etc.) couldn't afford it?

    And most people aren't suggesting that the gov't would be "in charge of your health"... Just they would be in charge of paying for your healthcare. If there is one thing that our government is good at, is paying for things.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    I never really understood this argument. People put tons of other things in the hands of the government that are life or death matter. I mean it is the government that makes sure planes don't crash into each other in the air, it is the government that makes sure that your country doesn't get invaded, how is having the government making sure that doctors get paid any different than that? I mean it is not like I bureaucrat is going to be the one giving you your physical exam, you still go see a real doctor.

    Maybe you can understand this: I do not willingly put many things in the government's hands. I'm simply in the minority. I think the government should be about making, enforcing and interpreting laws, national defense and infrastructure. It should get out of the business of everything else in my opinion.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    That sounds great in theory, but what happens to those who can't afford healthcare? Or those (like most of us) who could afford routine care, but if something major was needed (heart surgery, cancer treatement, etc.) couldn't afford it?

    I am in favor of some type of catastrophic health insurance, but why are we paying for health insurance to administer every sniffle we have?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    know1 wrote:
    I am in favor of some type of catastrophic health insurance, but why are we paying for health insurance to administer every sniffle we have?

    Who decides what is catastrophic? I can just see a huge mess with this idea as well... some administrator somewhere is going to make the decision whether the costly procedure that your doctor thinks you need is going to fall under this insurance? So the insurance company gets to decide to either pay a lot of money for this costly procedure, or decide it's not covered and pay nothing.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    And most people aren't suggesting that the gov't would be "in charge of your health"... Just they would be in charge of paying for your healthcare. If there is one thing that our government is good at, is paying for things.

    That really is all there is too it. The people who need healthcare have almost zero contact with the government people who pay the doctors. The doctor says I need a surgery, I get the surgery, he bills the government. At no point do I ever have to deal with the provincial department who pays that out and as long as the doctor says the treatment is required I don't have to fight with the insurance company to make sure it is paid for. I don't see why people think this is something that would be so difficult for a government department to handle, all they are is basically an accounts payable department.
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    jeffbr wrote:
    Unfortunately, since this will be a federal program, what you've described above will be exactly how it happens.
    Even so, a complete federal program would probably be a lot more effective and maybe even cheaper than the private insurance + federal last ditch measures which is what you have now.

    The question is whether any US candidate can touch the private health industry, and thus do anything other than expanding these band-aids in order to do something.

    The amount of people not getting coverage in the US is not a pretty number. Especially not if you add in those who have insufficient coverage.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    That really is all there is too it. The people who need healthcare have almost zero contact with the government people who pay the doctors. The doctor says I need a surgery, I get the surgery, he bills the government. At no point do I ever have to deal with the provincial department who pays that out and as long as the doctor says the treatment is required I don't have to fight with the insurance company to make sure it is paid for. I don't see why people think this is something that would be so difficult for a government department to handle, all they are is basically an accounts payable department.

    You don't think there would be government guidelines to determine who really needed that surgery? Surely the government wouldn't blindly pay for everything that every doctor orders.

    Or maybe it would, because government spending is way out of control.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Even so, a complete federal program would probably be a lot more effective and maybe even cheaper than the private insurance + federal last ditch measures which is what you have now.

    The question is whether any US candidate can touch the private health industry, and thus do anything other than expanding these band-aids in order to do something.

    The amount of people not getting coverage in the US is not a pretty number. Especially not if you add in those who have insufficient coverage.

    Peace
    Dan

    There would be no need for coverage if we eliminated the health insurance industry. It's a monopoly of the worst kind. Well second worst since taking it from a handful of price controlling entities and giving it to one - the government - would actually be worse.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    The thing that confuses me the most about this debate is that (on this forum, at least), usually many or most of the posts are from non-Americans, telling Americans how to run the American system.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Just informing you how the rest of the world do those things, and more successfully by most measures, and certainly more cost-effective. You may feel free to ignore it.

    And as for the monopoly, that can be used advantageous. A big buyer like a state can get some real leverage vis-a-vis the medical companies and keep those costs down as well. (Instead of pork-barreling and throwing money after them as you seem to do currently) The question is whether one values competition or full coverage the most, I guess.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    fanch75 wrote:
    The thing that confuses me the most about this debate is that (on this forum, at least), usually many or most of the posts are from non-Americans, telling Americans how to run the American system.


    But the advice is coming from people who's countries have universal health care that works. And they are probably better able to say what works well, and what doesn't.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • fanch75fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    Wait....

    Europe & Canada are both full of white people, right?
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    Here's the answer I usually hear:

    1) The rich...basically anyone but ME!!!!
    2) The government...you can't trust businesses they are evil, the government is the only organization on the planet that is 100% trust worthy and efficient.

    ;)

    I know of some that don't want it here. They're health professionals from Canada that moved here to actually make a decent wage and work in a decent healthcare environment. Imagine that.....
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    But the advice is coming from people who's countries have universal health care that works. And they are probably better able to say what works well, and what doesn't.


    "that works"

    Kinda like in the UK? See the ambulance at the ER problems there? Or in Canada, where you could be on a waiting list for 6 months to get an MRI for a fucking brain tumor?

    If that's "working"..holy shit...we're fucked.
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    know1 wrote:
    You don't think there would be government guidelines to determine who really needed that surgery? Surely the government wouldn't blindly pay for everything that every doctor orders.

    Or maybe it would, because government spending is way out of control.

    I am sure there are audits and procedures and everything to make sure no doctor is scamming the system, but I am pretty sure that sort of thing is done after the fact. But never have I or anyone I know ever had medical treatment held up while the government reviews to make sure it is necessary. Plus I am not sure why very many doctors (if any) would try to scam the system like that. I mean there is more than enough demand for doctors where you don’t need to start making up fake patients to pay your bills. Plus I can’t see the reward being that great compared to the risk. I mean doctors are pretty smart people by definition so I can’t see too many of them risking their medical license and never working again in exchange for a few extra fake patients.
  • Solat13Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    Drew263 wrote:
    I know of some that don't want it here. They're health professionals from Canada that moved here to actually make a decent wage and work in a decent healthcare environment. Imagine that.....

    Yep, almost 25% of physicians in this country were trained in another country and moved here to work for higher wages than they would receive from their countries of origin. One of the immediate problems that universal healthcare would have to combat would be keeping these doctors working here when more than likely their salaries are going to drop. Factor this in with the declining value of the US dollar on the world market and we could have a major problem finding doctors.
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 8/28/98
    - 9/2/00
    - 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
    - 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
    - 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
    - 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
    - 8/2/07, 8/5/07
    - 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
    - 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
    - 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
    - 9/11/11, 9/12/11
    - 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Drew263 wrote:
    "that works"

    Kinda like in the UK? See the ambulance at the ER problems there? Or in Canada, where you could be on a waiting list for 6 months to get an MRI for a fucking brain tumor?

    If that's "working"..holy shit...we're fucked.


    The people who wait 6 months in Canada for an MRI are people who have non-life threatening conditions. I don't think anyone who has a brain tumor who needs an MRI waits 6 months for one. Now the guy with a bad knee from an injury that hurts a bit to walk might have to wait that long, but that is entirely different. Plus I will take that any day over worrying that there are sick people out there who might be contagious (and could make me sick) with like TB or something but can’t get treatment because they don’t have the money to pay for it and can’t afford private health insurance.
Sign In or Register to comment.